A piece about a question. It's in the melody. I have been experimenting with different modes of expression on the repeat. Hope this one is meaningful but not overdone.Tags are still 2.3 tacked onto 2.4 until the Rainer cavalry arrives to help me out.

It's important that this offering not get lost in the shuffle because we currently do not have a recording of it on the site. I think this one is fine. You've solved your problem of non-sounding notes, and the piece does not sound rushed.It's difficult to discuss interpretations of this piece, and I won't try. It's interesting to note that Richter's recording is almost a minute longer; don't ever feel like you're taking too much freedom!I noticed that your recording of #1 is on the site, and yet neither your picture nor that of Schumann is on the front page. Perhaps there is a daily program that takes care of that.Too bad about the 128, but then it was not so long ago that 128 was standard. I'm sure that there are plenty of 128's on the site. It misses a little of the "ringing" of the piano, and this is one piece where that would be nice to have. It did not really hurt the recording of #2, though, since the notes sort of fly by in that one.

A piece about a question. It's in the melody. I have been experimenting with different modes of expression on the repeat. Hope this one is meaningful but not overdone.Tags are still 2.3 tacked onto 2.4 until the Rainer cavalry arrives to help me out.

Haha, can you hear the hooves thundering in the distance yet ?This is a most beautiful recording, I can't find anything to niggle about.

StuKautsch wrote:

I noticed that your recording of #1 is on the site, and yet neither your picture nor that of Schumann is on the front page. Perhaps there is a daily program that takes care of that.

Yes there is, and it looks like it's been stuck for some days now. I need to look into that - but have been too busy recording my own stuff

StuKautsch wrote:

Too bad about the 128, but then it was not so long ago that 128 was standard. I'm sure that there are plenty of 128's on the site. It misses a little of the "ringing" of the piano, and this is one piece where that would be nice to have. It did not really hurt the recording of #2, though, since the notes sort of fly by in that one.

We've been silently shifting our preference from 128 to 192. Could be you'd get a little more bloom with 192, this seems to sound just a tad constricted. Heather, does your device record ' directly' to mp3 ? And do you do postprocessing as well ? That would not be goodfor audio quality. Best to use a device that records in WAV so you don't suffer from double compression.

Now I'm confused, I thought you used an mp3-only recorder (they do exist) because you sayd 128Kb was the max compression you could do. Postprocessingprograms like Wavepad have a choice of compression rates so I don't understand how 128 can be the maximum. Or do you do the wav->mp3 conversion on the recorder itself ?

Recorder is this one [url]http://www.bestbuy.com/site/zoom-h2n-portable-handy-recorder/3088678.p?id=1218377121257&skuId=3088678&ref=06&loc=01&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=3088678&extensionType={adtype}:{network}&s_kwcid=PTC!pla!{keyword}!{matchtype}!{adwords_producttargetid}!{network}!{ifmobile:M}!{creative}&kpid=3088678&k_clickid=56d4307d-a05f-e7c9-b3b3-00002919c6f9#tab=overview[/url]

I put a SIM memory card in and press record.I then remove the card from the recorder and put it in my computer.On the computer I look at the files recorded, which are WAV files sampled at 44100 hz. Now I can't find where it said 12800 (bit rate is different from sampling rate right?) but I think I was looking at the wav file when I saw that.I open up Audacity and do any editing necessary, at least clipping off the start and end of the recording with my footsteps walking back and forth from recorder to piano. No post-processing other than that.I use Audacity to export a WAV file and an MP3 file.

The WAV would typically have a sample rate of 44100 Hz. This is quite standard for portable devices and does not need to be changed. Don't confuse this with the compression rate (bit rate), which comes into play when you convert from WAV (uncompressed) to mp3 (compressed). In Audacity, when you specify to save as mp3, there should be an option somewhere to specify the compression rate (kilobits per second, kbps). A default of 128 kbps is common, but it would be better to set it to 192kbps. I don't use Audacity so I can't show you how to do it.

From what I heard the Zoom H2 does not produce as good a sound as the Zoom H4, or Edirol R9 (Monica's device) or Tascam DR1 (my device). The microphones are just not as good. I think it's more of a voice/pop music recorder.

Heather,When you "export" as MP3, it should bring up a dialog box entitled "Export File" or "Export Selection" (depending on which you're doing) to allow you to name the resulting file. That dialog has 3 buttons: Save, Cancel, or Options. Before hitting "Save", click "Options", choose "Constant" for "bit rate mode", and then choose "192 kbps" for Quality.

If you don't have Audacity 2.0.4, you should download it - it's better. However, I should warn you that the reverb engine has changed, so any old settings that you use will no longer be appropriate and you'll have to experiment again.

I have a Zoom H2, and transfer the files using USB. For reasons that I no longer remember, it shows me all of the files as being already MP3 at 192 kbps. I'm looking at the manual and cannot find how to control that, but I did find the material on converting a WAV to MP3 - it's in the chapter called "File Operations". However, I believe that I record directly into MP3 ...

Aha! - Near the beginning of the chapter entitled "Convenient Recording Functions", it shows you how to bring up the "REC MODE" screen, which should allow you to choose MP3 and then 192 kbps. Note that you have to record in "Stereo Mode" for this. (4-channel probably has only WAV.)

MP3 takes a small fraction of the "disk" space that WAV does, so it's really in your interest to set this unless you're using the recordings for audio CD as well as internet stuff.

And Chris is probably right about the H2's mic quality. It's price tag has allowed me to tune my old piano a little more often, though, so I have to put up with it.

BTW: I've lost one of these before by leaving the batteries in too long - the batteries leaked and destroyed my first H2. I no longer use batteries, which means I have to reset the date/time every recording session, but it's better than flushing $200 down the toilet.

Ok, thanks for educating me on the bitrate issue. I will see if I can make new mp3 exports at a higher bitrate.At present I don't think that spending a lot on new microphone(s) for the purpose of making free recordings makes sense for me. This one is not the best possible, but it was affordable and it produces decent enough results that folks can enjoy the music. At least I hope so. If the quality is not good enough for the site then I understand.

BTW: I've lost one of these before by leaving the batteries in too long - the batteries leaked and destroyed my first H2. I no longer use batteries, which means I have to reset the date/time every recording session, but it's better than flushing $200 down the toilet.

I'm glad you wrote that Stu ! I should take the batteries out of my Tascam as I don't ever use them either. Never thought of that before, somehow.

This one is not the best possible, but it was affordable and it produces decent enough results that folks can enjoy the music. At least I hope so. If the quality is not good enough for the site then I understand.

Oh it's good enough, as is 128kbps. I just wanted to mention that you can get better sound with a (slightly) more expensive recorder and less compression.

Where I live one says "cheap is espensive". I spent over $ 100,00 on a recorder which later turned out to be voice only with no other option than MP3. Had I bought something like Chris has, I would have spent marginally more and would now be able to submit recordings. Well, not really, because the piano needs to be tuned and I am waiting until the weather is settled, which it seems now to be.

Now I will need to buy a new one, so, where are the savings?

_________________Richard Willmer"Please do not shoot the pianistHe is doing his best."Oscar Wilde: Impressions of America: Leadville

This is a lovely rendition of "Warum?". You play it with poetry and fluidity. I followed along in the Henle edition and found nothing to criticize. You might have played the sforzando accents with a bit more emphasis in measures 21 and 24. I realize that there are the RH crossovers to contend with, but those accented notes atop the double notes are voiced melodically pointing to the B flats in the following measures in both instances, even though written within the accompaniment. Then again I realize they need to fit into the context without becoming too intrusive. So I'm sure you experimented to see what worked best there. In the general scheme that's a nit. Again, overall I think this piece is very well played. I wouldn't change anything.

Good work!

David

_________________"Interpreting music means exploring the promise of the potential of possibilities." David April

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum